JX 

1949 

T3 















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, f 
















9 









•4 

’•# Sw*Sc**«KS»i* VF» 


nyc 

&JU. 


■ -m iA Ai <fti‘HH [ iMu Im'JH 

*»<re avns w *z% »7n r£ 4V Sufi.; «w* 


TP'S 


A*, A #*,*!?• 


*•<»<» 


A SYSTEM OF 






V", 


tn x? 




IN TWO LETTERS. 




IP- 

Si 


81 

II 


m 

W7-. 

*£ 

m 

*£ 


*?r 

ISP 


IS 




BY THOMAS PARSONS, 

* MINISTER Or THE BAPTIST SOCIETY, IS ENGLAND 


*»r* 

or 

fcl 


<1 


it l 


BURLINGTON, N I. 
PUBLISHED BY DAVID ALUNSON, 














DAVID ALLWSON 

. . ;/>.}■' :■ ■ ■ : - t \ v. g- „ . '*?'- ■ ' »*% 

• *• % 

Designs to furnish the Publick early in the Spring, with 


THE 


♦ 


COLUMBIAN STANDARD 

OF 

ORTHOGRAPHY AND PRONUNCIATION, 

AND IMPROVED 

DICTIONARY 

4 • r 

OF THE 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE; 


; r .V r" j 




ABRIDGED FOR THE ITSE OF SCHOOLS. 


' irt?' 
;vV.> 


Price One Dollar and a Half. 


.v'l 




We do not wish to make any specious representa¬ 
tions; but we trust that it may be truly said, this work 
will add much that is additional, and importantly valu¬ 
able to the abridged Dictionaries now in the hands of 
our youth. It embraces the principle of our large work 
lately published, corrected: the pronunciation of all the 
words being given. The abridgment is made by Bur- 
giss Allison, D. D. formerly Principal of the Borden- 
town Academy. 

The publication of an edition of the Columbian 
Standard of Orthography and Pronunciation, 
price Three Dollars Fifty Cents, and Four Dollars ; 
would have preceded this Abridgment, but for the latej 
copious and correct Philadelphia edition of Walker's 
Dictionary* 



CHRISTIANITY 


A SYSTEM OF 

F ) liLp \ 117^ 

JCj A J2h*> 

IN TWO LETTERS. 



BY THOMAS PARSONS, 

u 


A MINISTER OF THE BAPTIST SOCIETY, IN ENGLAND. 


f ‘ No two tilings can be more different, than the TIeroick and the Christian 
characters.” Paley’s Evidences of Christianity , vol. 2. p. 32. 

“ And lie shall judge among the nations; and shall work conviction in many 
peoples: and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their 
spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, 
neither shall they learn war any more.” 

Lowth's Translation of Isaiah, ch. 2. vcr. 4. 

X 


BURLINGTON N. J. 

PUBLISHED BY DAVID ALLIN SON. 



1813 , 








E. 



PREFAC 




WHILE thousands and tens of thousands are endeavouring to form tin 
estimate of the national and individual advantages and disadvantages * 
which they apprehend war and peace respectively produce , and are exert-** 
ing their influence accordingly in promoting the continuance of the one, or 
the return of the other; it is presumed there are some, and probably not a 
very small number who, after repeated serious perusals of the doctrines and 
precepts of Christ and his apostles, apprehend that the prosecution of war 
in any shape, or upon any ground, can scarcely be reconciled to those in¬ 
junctions, and that it is therefore unlawful for Christians. To such as 
these, the subjoined Letters are offered, with a humble hope that the argu¬ 
ments they contain will enable them to judge of the rectitude of those appre¬ 
hensions. There may also be other readers not quite so conversant with the 
JVew Testament, who, from the hints and illustrations in the following little 
■work\ may be induced to act like the Bereans, and see for themselves , 
whether the whole tenour of the Gospel is not repugnant to war. These , 
<cs well as the former class, if sincerely desirous of knowing the truth, will 
surely not seek in vain. 

It is hoped that the following extract from a Fast Sermon, preached 
about four years ago by a pious clergyman, and printed, but not published , 
may without impropriety be introduced here.—The repeated perusal of it 
has, in some degree, tended to encourage the present measure. 

“ The universal propagation of the Gospel is indeed an event which, 
above every other, must excite the prayers and engage the attention of die 
real Christian. The powers of darkness seem about to be shaken. To the 
dissemination of the pure and undefiled religion of a crucified Redeemer , 
their utmost rage and malice will be opposed: and we have Scriptural 
grounds for apprehending that its progress will be made through scenes of 
anarchy and blood. Wars will not yet cease to make havock on the earth. 
J\1ore widows and orphans are doomed to make lamentation; the effusion, 
*f human blood will continue to be great; and cities and kingdoms will yet 
be devoted to devastation and ruin. But these awful commotions will ul¬ 
timately subside into universal peace; they will be preparatory to the com¬ 
plete establishment of the Redeemer's kingdom; when all kings shall fall 
down before him, and all nations shall serve him. Psalm Ixxii. 11. 

“ If then we desire to promote genuine religion in a world that lieth in 
wickedness; if we would avert die destruction of our favoured country , 
and save our souls from the inconceivably more dreadful punishment, which 
is treasured up for the impenitent sinner against the day of wrath; let us 
Hve as becometh the Gospel of Christ. It is the prevalence, of His grace 
in the heart and affections , which can alone bring peace on earth; and 
which will enable us to obey that new commandment of our Divine JWaster, 
which he has so affectingly exemplified, to lore one another. To our unre¬ 
mitting endeavours for the accompli shmanl of an object, which transcends 
every other in magnitude caul utility—an object which, while it promotes 
our Redeemer's glory, ensures the present peace and future happiness of 
■mankind—let vs add our fervent prayers, that God will hasten the time , 
when all nations shall believe in, and obey, the Gospel. Then may we anti¬ 
cipate, with clsrout rapture, that blissful consummation; when'the wolf 
shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and 
the calf, and the young lion, and the falling together; when they shell beat 
their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and 
learn war no more; and when all the kingdoms of tins world shall become 
the kingdoms of our God, and of his Christ , and he shall reign for ever 
anU ever .’—Is. xi. &. ii. 4. Iiev. xi. 15.” 




LETTER I. 


) REVEREND SIR, 

T 

J. PRESUME to commence this Address with a 
profession of great respect for your talents, character, and 
amiable manners, as sincere as, in my opinion, it is merited: 
nothing therefore in the subsequent pages, will, I hope, be 
distorted to insinuate any personal sentiment, incompatible 
with this profession. 

Having for a series of years entertained the idea, that 
Christianity tends to eradicate every principle in the human 
heart that is promotive of hostility amongst mankind, I felt 
peculiar pleasure in reading Mr. Warner’s Sermon on that 
subject; and admired the fortitude and integrity of the 
preacher, who dared to avow a doctrine so little accommo¬ 
dated to the prevalent opinion of the age, as the one that his 
discourse attempted to establish, that 6i War is inconsistent 
with Christianity 

Your letter to Mr. Warner, on the publication of that 
sermon, does honour to your abilities as a writer, and to 
your urbanity as an opponent. I cannot however, admit, 
that in support of war of any description, it has effected the 
least change in my mind: the question I consider as stand¬ 
ing exactly in the same position, as before the subject was 
agitated. War is a state of violence, a sanguinary conflict 
between two or more nations, in the issue of which, the in¬ 
terest and happiness of the people composing those nations, 
are partially or wholly involved. Does Christianity en¬ 
courage, or prohibit such vindictive appeals to arms? This 
is the inquiry, divested of all adventitious circumstances. I 
do firmly believe, that the New Testament, which is the 
Christian’s supreme and sufficient directory in all articles 
of faith and practice, opposes and discountenances war; and 
that it admits of no principle, and authorizes no motive, in 
which war can originate, or by which it may be perpetua¬ 
ted. 

The distinction made between offensive* and defensive 

* It is the general practice of the European courts to publish manifestos, 
to vindicate their own conduct in commencing hostilities, arid to charge the 
resisting nation with all the aggression which has provoked resentment, and 
justified retaliation. Hence the mass of the people, in every state are led 
to believe, and they really do believe, that the cause of their country is in¬ 
disputably just: and pious people in the different states, when at war, are 
devoutly praying against each other. Hut the distinction between offensive 
and defensive war is less solid than verbal: the original ground of complain 


4 


war, is not admitted into the Gospel of Christ, which giv«# 
no indulgence to the irascible or revengeful passions, by au¬ 
thorizing violence towards a fellow-creature on any occasion. 

You will perceive, Sir, that whatever you may think of 
my prudence, I mean to take up the subject fairly, and free 
from all equivocation or subterfuge. 

The proposition which Mr. Warner has adopted, I avow 
in its full extent; and shall attempt to prove, that by the 
genuine spirit of the JYenv Testament , the precepts it incul- 
caiesy and the examples it exhibits , 44 War is inconsistent 
with Christianity.” 

That in the compass of a short sermon, the evidence in 
support of Mr. Warner’s thesis is not so diffusive as the 
authority to which he appeals would have supplied, is less 
a subject of surprise than regret. But whatever be his 
intentions as to a continuance of the discussion, the doctrine 
is sufficiently important to demand serious investigation; 
and if my humble effort be the means of exciting the atten¬ 
tion of superiour advocates in the cause I wish to establish, 
I shall be highly gratified. 

War is opposed to the genius and spirit of Christianity. 
This is deducible from the prophecies of the Messiah’s ad¬ 
vent, and the blessings which were to flow from thence. 
In the language of inspiration, one of his emphatical titles is, 
the “ Prince of Peace;” the heralds of salvation are the 
44 publishers of peace;” in the figurative style of prediction, 
the ferocious passions were to be extirpated: “ they shall 
not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth 
shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters 
cover the sea.” In the Redeemer’s reign, “judgment 
shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in 
the fruitful field; and the work of righteousness shall be 
peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assu¬ 
rance for ever.” 44 They shall beat their swords into plough¬ 
shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not 
lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war 
any more.” Such intimations of the nature and tendency 
of the Gospel might, as you know, be swelled to a large 
extent; but these quotations may be sufficient to authorize 
me in asserting, that the kingdom of the Redeemer was, by 

is soon lost sight of; the aggressor is often brought to act on the defensive; 
and it is not uncommon for both parties to preface a rupture by so many 
reciprocal affronts, as to render it impracticable to decide, which of them con¬ 
stituted the original aggression. “ Every just war,” says the admirable 
Paley, “ is a defensive war, inasmuch as every just war supposes an injury 
perpetrated, attempted, or feared/ 5 A government, in any state, ma\ with 
the gr< atest facility maintain that some injury is perpetrated, attempted , or 
feared , and thus justify hostilities whenever it thinks proper to commence 
\hem. —See page 23 of Let. 2* 


the spirit of prophecy, described as peaceable and happy, 
free from all discordant principles, and exempt from hostili¬ 
ty. The same idea is confirmed by the current of history 
in the New Testament. The angel who appeared to the 
shepherds, having announced the birth of the Saviour, was 
joined by a multitude of the heavenly host in pr aising God, 
and saying, “ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
peace, good-will towards men.” The tranquillity which is 
said to have spread over the whole world at this auspicious 
period, is finely indicative of His character, and the genius 
of His government, who thus came into the world to effect 
reconciliation and peace between God and men, and by in¬ 
evitable consequence to establish reciprocal benevolence, 
and peace upon earth. Who can think of war and all it£ 
train of horrours as compatible with Christianity, when he 
views the lowly Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth, and hears 
him recite that prophecy—“ The spirit of the Lord is upon 
me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to 
the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to 
preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight 
to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bound?” Who 
can imagine sanguinary conflicts between the progeny ot 
God to be sanctioned by the blessed Jesus, when he hears 
the gracious invitation, “ Come unto me all ye that labour, 
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my 
^yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek, and lowly 
in heart?” But to avoid prolixity, where evidence is so va-» 
rious and so copious, I shall only state that the Most High, 
is styled the God of Peace, that Jesus Christ is the Prince 
of Peace, that his Gospel is the Gospel of Peace, that his 
Apostles were the Ambassadours of Peace, and that the fruit 
of the Spirit is « love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, 
goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there 
is no law.” Characters distinguished by such dispositions 
can never be the slaves of diabolical passions; can never im¬ 
brue their hands in human blood. And the uniform ten¬ 
dency of Christ’s doctrine and injunctions, as well as of all 
divine influence, is to form man after this heavenly model. 

The firecejits of the Gosfiel , which apply to this subject; 
are some of them direct, and some prohibitory: some enjoin 
the cultivation of benevolent principles, and amiable tem¬ 
pers; and others restrain and forbid anger, wrath, revenge, 
and every hostile passion. 

Truth and virtue appeared all perfect and lovely in the 
person of Jesus Christ; yet, “ he came unto his own, and his 
own received him not.” The world hated him, « because 
he testified of it, that the works thereof are evil.” The ob¬ 
ject of his entrance into our world, was to destroy the works 


of the devil, to save mankind from sin, and to make sinners 
holy and happy. His instructions and commands uniformly 
tend to the extinction of every immoral propensity, and the 
promotion of every virtuous principle. His precepts are 
designed to counteract and expel the evils of our nature, 
and to form the heart for universal goodness. 

Ambition, selfishness, and revenge, are the causes of war; 
but the Christian must be clothed with humility, must love 
his neighbour as himself, and patiently submit to injurious 
treatment. The love of the world must be eradicated from 
his bosom, 44 For all that is in the world, the lust of the 
flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the 
Father, but is of the world.” “Let us not be desirous of 
vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” 
44 Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory, but in 
lowliness of mind: let each esteem other better than htm- 
self.” 44 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and cla¬ 
mour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.” Chris¬ 
tians are forbidden to assume authority over one another. 
44 Whoever will be chief among you, let him be your ser¬ 
vant. Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered 
unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” 
The duty of forgiveness is enforced upon them with the 
most awful sanction; 44 For if you forgive men their tres¬ 
passes, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye 
forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father 
forgive your trespasses.” 

The disciples of Christ were taught to expect reproach 
and persecution; but they were instructed to bear the hatred 
of the world with patience. They are not to repel injuries 
by force; they are not to indulge resentment; but are di¬ 
rected to love their enemies, to bless them that curse them, 
to pray for them that despitefully use them, and to return 
good for evil. 44 If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he 
thirst, give him drink: be not overcome of evil, but over¬ 
come evil with good.” Instead of entering into contention 
and strife, they are to 44 have peace one with another,” 44 to 
follow peace with all men;” and 44 if it be possible, to live 
peaceably with all men.” Love is the grand principle of 
the religion of Christ; from whence piety towards God, and 
active, unwearied, and universal benevolence towards men, 
must proceed. 44 Love is of God, and he that loveth not, 
knoweth not God, for God is love. 44 Finally, brethren, be 
perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace, 
and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” 

The cjcamfiles of Christ, and the first converts to Chris¬ 
tianity, are in perfect consistency with this limited view of 
the genius and the precepts of the Gospel. When Che 


r 


jostles, after having been imprisoned and beaten, depane d 
from the Jewish council; they rejoiced that they were count¬ 
ed worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus Cmrist. 
St. Stephen, in imitation of his Divine Master, fell . -crir* 
to the rage of his persecutors, and offered up his las breath 
in praying for them. After Saul had been converted, and be¬ 
came a zealous promoter of the Christian cause, a number 
o: his implacable enemies confederated together to destroy 
him; this was in the true spirit of the world: and had the 
disciples who were persecuted by him with such inveterate 
malignity before his conversion, associated together for the 
purpose of ridding themselves and the world of such a fe¬ 
rocious zealot, they might, on the generally-admitted prin¬ 
ciples of mankind, have been vindicated. But ieligion. 
taught them a milder lesson, and they itr lied from 

their enemies, or submitted to their mt resistance 

or murmuring. They availed themselves of the security 
afforded them by the laws of the state, when these were 
violated to oppress them, or perverted to effect their de¬ 
struction, they fled from one city to another, but never of¬ 
fered violence to their assailants, nor attempted to ensure 
their safety by injuring, much less by killing their enemies. 
They persisted with unshaken fortitude in the path of duty, 
and left their comforts and their lives to the disposal of Him, 
to whose service alone they were devoted. Our Lord had 
directed his disciples, when they should see Jerusalem en¬ 
compassed with armies, to seek a place of safety, and leave 
the unhappy city to its dreadful doom: this, history informs 
\is they did; and from thence we may infer they took no part 
in the defence of their country. 

When we reflect on the impression made upon the minds 
of the populace, by the doctrine preached and miracles 
performed by the apostles, and that neither their influence 
with the multitude, nor their supernatural powers, were 
ever employed to protect themselves from those who thirst¬ 
ed for their blood; we have the clearest proof that they did 
not war after the flesh, and that they considered the weapons 
of their warfare to be not carnal, but spiritual. 

It is, however, in the life and actions of the Saviour of 
mankind, that we contemplate the most perfect illustration 
of those principles, and that conduct which he recommends 
and enjoins upon all that become his disciples. In Him we 
behold the uniform operation of that forbearing, unresisting, 
peaceful spirit which he inculcates upon his followers. He 
had all power in heaven and earth coimnitted unto him; yet 
he submitted to reproach, to indignity, :o /ioience, and t® 
death, without ever working a miracle 10 repress his ene¬ 
mies, or screen himself from their rage» « He was led 0 


a Iamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers 
is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” “ He gave his bach 
to the smiters, and his cheek to them who plucked off the 
hair.” “ Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, 
that we should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was 
guile found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled 
not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but com¬ 
mitted himself to Him who judgeth righteously.” Prince 
of Peace! When shall the mild and benignant system, which 
thy life and doctrine illustrate, be diffused throughout the 
world? When shah holy love be the universal principle that 
shall glow in every bosom, stimulate every action, and unite 
thy rational creatures in one permanent connexion of purity 
and peace? 

Thus, reverend Sir, I submit to your notice a specimen 
of the kind of evidence on which the validity of Mr. War¬ 
ner’s proposition rests. It might easily have been extended 
by a more particular citation of authorities and examples; 
but I content myself with stating what appears to me suf¬ 
ficient proof of the fact, that u War is inconsistent with 
Christianity .” I have limited myself to the New Testa¬ 
ment,* and the prophecies which relate to the period of 
which it gives us the history; because I do not think my¬ 
self justified in blending either Judaism or Gentiiism with 
Christianity: an extension of the field of controversy weak¬ 
ens the force on each side, protracts the contest, and eludes 
decision; or, in a figure better suited to my theme, a Chris¬ 
tian warriour requires the aid of no weapons, but those with 
which he is supplied by the Captain of his Salvation. 

Many years are passed away, since I read Mr. Soame Je- 
nyns on the Internal Evidence of Christianity; and however 
incompatible with national partiality, and the general system 
of politicks, I profess a firm belief in the doctrine he has 
with great elegance advanced, namely, that patriotism, (in 
the generally-admitted acceptation of the term,) and active 
courage are not included in the class of Christian virtues, as 
those virtues are detailed in the New Testament. « The 

y 

* Were it my misfortune to coincide in opinion with a Rev. Gentleman, 
when he says, “ It is not to be supposed, that in the short history given by the 
apostles, one thousandth part of the doctrine or instruction delivered by our 
Saviour to his disciples could be recorded,” I certainly should not have re¬ 
sorted to the New Testament as the supreme arbitrator in any question 
•which affects Christianity, but should have appealed at once to that “ other 
light” of which the author speaks, and have taken refuge in the bosom of 
infallibility. To the Roman Church, every man who holds such an opinion 
ought, in my humble judgment, to conform, if he wish to secure a consist¬ 
ency of character. See Guide to the Churchy by the Rev. G. Daubenr, 
page 23. The pi’oper basis on which Protestantism is supported, will he 
found in the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation, as asserted ift 
the Sixth Article of the established religion in this kingdom. 


9 


tttoth is,” (says archdeacon Paley,)* “there are two oppo¬ 
site descriptions of character under which mankind may 
generally be classed. The one possesses vigour, firmness, 
resolution; is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities, 
jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its 
purpose, violent in its resentments: the other, meek, yield¬ 
ing, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act, but willing 
to suffer; silent and gentle under rudeness and insult; suing 
for reconciliation where others would demand satisfaction; 
giving way to the pushes of impudence; conceding and in¬ 
dulgent to the prejudices, the wrong-headedness, the in¬ 
tractability oi those with whom it has to deal.” 

u The former of these characters is, and ever has been, 
the favourite of the world. It is the character of great men. 
There is a dignity in it which universally commands respect. 
The latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject. Yet so it hath 
happened, that with the Founder of Christianity, this latter, 
is the subject of his commendation, his precepts, his exam¬ 
ple; and that the former is so in no part of its composition." 

If then it be the duty of a Christian minister, to endeavour 
to impress upon his audience the difference between a man 
of the world, and a disciple of Christ; if it be obligatory upon 
him, to expose the mistakes and rectify the errours generally 
prevalent, and to exhibit a fair and unequivocal statement of 
the gospel, in its genuine spirit and practical requisitions, 
Mr. Warner’s conduct can stand in need of neither apology 
nor vindication. Some doubt has indeed been suggested, as 
to the propriety of engaging the publick attention to such 
a subject, at a period when, it is asserted, all the vigour 
and spirit of the nation should, instead of being depressed, 
be excited and brought into action. But the wise Physician, 
who sees around him the wide-spreading infection, will di¬ 
rect his immediate efforts to check its progress, and not suf¬ 
fer his patients to linger in protracted disease, until the 
most skilful applications become unavailable. The man of 
God, anxious, not merely to discharge his official duties, but 
also to extend and disseminate the pure principles of our 
holy religion, will combine discretion with zeal, and seize 
those opportunities for reproof, admonition and instruction, 
which existing circumstances point out as peculiarly pro¬ 
per. “ Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be 
called the children of God.” 

Several modern versions,! now before me, establish the 
accuracy of your criticism on Matt. xxvi. 52, in reading bij 
instead of with the sword: yet, with deference to superiour 

* View of die Evidences of Christianity, by Archdeacon Paley VOl. in 
p. 30, 31. 

f Campbell, Wakefield, Newcome. 

A 3 


ii 


penetration, I do not perceive the least danger of misapprdJ 
liension, as that verse stands in the common translation. If 
a person be said to be killed with a sword or by a sword, the 
hearer will, in either form, have precisely the same idea of 
the fact. It is of more importance to obtain the genuine 
meaning of the passage; and in my judgment, it includes a 
reprehension of the violence which Peter’s zeal had prompt¬ 
ed him to— u Put up thy sword again into his place:” and 
an intimation that Peter should lose his own life by violence, 
“ for all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.” 
That Peter continued to wear a sword after this rebuke, is 
highly improbable; the following part of our Lord’s dis¬ 
course on the occasion, certainly implies that such weapons 
were superfluous in his cause. “ Thinkest thou that I can¬ 
not now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me- 
more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the* 
Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” Nor do we 
£nd Peter, in any part of his subsequent history, in a situation 
or disposition to require or use a sword. I can perceive no 
shadow of argument in support of even defensive war, de¬ 
rivable from this passage. The blessed Saviour rebukes 
fehe impetuous ardour of Peter, though proving the strength 
of his attachment to his Lord, as tending to the subversion 
of Scriptural prediction, and as totally unnecessary, because 
did his situation require aid, heaven would pour forth its le¬ 
gions to rescue him from his foes. The reasoning, if any 
«an be deduced from this part of sacred history applicable 
io the subject of war, is all on the negative side; and we 
arc taught by it, that intemperate zeal is not only useless 
but may be indicative of imminent danger; and, from the 
striking example of the meek and lowly Jesus, that submis¬ 
sion to the Divine will, even in the most calamitous circum¬ 
stances, is a Christian’s duty. 

The passage you refer to, viz. Luke xxii. 36, has consi¬ 
derable difficulty; but as no expositor I have met with sup¬ 
poses the prophecy, permission, or direction, to be intended 
literally, the application of it to the subject of war is not 
strictly proper. And perhaps the advocates of war, of any 
description, would act more consistently, if, by wholly laying 
aside the New Testament, together with every attempt to 
betid it to their purpose, they took some other ground more 
analogous to the vindictive tempers in which war originates, 
and by which it is perpetuated. The law of nature, and 
'the custom of nations, from the remotest antiquity down to 
the present day, would supply them with ample materials, 
and examples innumerable. But let them not misapply their 
talents in attempting to extract from the Gospel of Peace, 
©rigioatipg with the God of Peace, and designed to diffuse 


11 


ahd multiply peace as long as the moon endureth, shy sanc¬ 
tion for war; a cruel system, which every particle of Chris¬ 
tianity tends to exterminate for ever. 

Every individual moves in a sphere more or less extend¬ 
ed, in which his principles may operate usefully to himself 
and to others. The life of a Christian should be an exem¬ 
plification of his principles; and these, to constitute the cha¬ 
racter, should be derived from the records of that worthy 
name by which he is called. Whatever statesmen and he¬ 
roes make the rule of their conduct, and the objects of their 
pursuit, the Heir of Heaven, though possessing no qualifica¬ 
tions for temporal distinction, will peaceably advance, mark¬ 
ing his steps with benevolence, his heart open to the claims 
of human wretchedness, and often sighing over the miseries 
which ambition inflicts upon man; but his witness is in hea¬ 
ven, his treasure is there, and there are his affections. Ho 
is a good citizen, a quiet and submissive subject, and dis¬ 
charges the offices of his station with integrity He is content 
in humility, patient in sufferings, faithful in his immediate 
attachments; but were his powers equal to his wishes, his 
kindness would embrace the universe. He injures none, 
but is ready to every good word and work; and by patient 
continuance in well-doing, is seeking for glory, honour, and 
immortality. Multiply such characters until nations are 
composed of them, then shall “ mercy and truth meet to¬ 
gether, and righteousness and peace kiss each other;” “ then 
shall every man sit under his vine and his fig-tree, and none 
shall make them afraid.” 

Allow me, reverend Sir, to conclude this Address, by so¬ 
liciting your candour, and by assuring you that I am, 

With sincere respect, 

Your obedient servant, 

June 21, 1804. T. P. 


LETTER II. 


REVEREND SIR, 

May I hope for your indulgence, when solicit¬ 
ing your attention to a second Address, on the subject of 
War, as being adverse to Christianity? In my first letter, a 
concise but comprehensive view of the religion of Christ, as 
opposed to national hostility, was attempted to be given: its 
obvious spirit and general complexion, the precepts it incul¬ 
cates, and the exemplary illustrations it affords, were brie/ly 




1 % 

stated; and were intended to converge, in one lufninotiS 
proposition, “ Christianity is a System of Peace.” This 
being the writer’s immediate object, many of the lessee 
branches of the argument were not specifically noticed; from 
an apprehension, that if the general principle were esta¬ 
blished, its application to particular cases would require no 
qualifications but those of seriousness and consistency. 

In the postscript of your letter to Mr. Warner, you appear 
to require a precept, precise and express, prohibiting de¬ 
fensive war. “ Thou shalt do no injury in aggression, and 
thou shalt do no injury in self-defence, are commands so dis¬ 
tinct in their essence, that from the possibility of hourly 
mistakes, the Gospel not only would, but ought to have con¬ 
tained the latter in the most direct language ”* And in the 
letter with which I am honoured, you say, “ Those who are 
required to obey, are to consider the words of the law, and 
not its spirit, and much less the intention of the law-giver.’* 
This I did not expect; and cannot avoid suspecting, that 
you have, in this instance, in some degree deviated from; 
your habitual correctness of judgment and style. Have you 
not, Sir, often deduced from an author a prevailing opinion, 
which he no where in direct terms avows? You have, I pre* 
Slime, read Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the 
Roman Empire: the last chapters of the first volume were 
generally understood to indicate that the author was verging 
towards infidelity. He is so guarded in his phraseology, 
that I believe he no where declares himself hostile to 
Christianity; yet no one doubted the fact. You have often 
noticed our statesmen referring to the spirit of the constitu¬ 
tion, when no publick document supplied the opinion ad¬ 
vanced in definitive terms. You must also have frequently 
observed pleaders introducing the occasion which rendered 
necessary a particular statute, the design of the legislature 
in passing it, the preamble, and the enacting clauses; and 
from these particulars deducing, by inference growing out 
of the whole, the spirit of the Act, and of consequence the 
applicable or inapplicable nature of the compulsory part to 
the case in hand. Indeed legal statutes are usually so ge¬ 
neral in their enactions, that subsequent decisions upon liti¬ 
gated cases are usually referred to, as more specifick and 
defined than the statutes themselves. If we apply the same 
3dnd of investigation to the New Testament, it will, I believe 
be clearly seen, that its mild benignant spirit is all peace; 
and that its precepts, though expressed in general terms, 
are sufficiently comprehensive to include and apply to all 
cases that can arise.f 

* Letter to Mr. Warner, postscript, p. 28. 

t tf the wards of the law, without any respect to its spirit and intention 


13 


But you say , (i I conclude, from the silence of Scriptui’6 
respecting self-defence, and its declarations respecting ag¬ 
gression, that one is a sin, and the other is not.*’ Permit mo 
to ask, Sir, where are those specifick declarations respect¬ 
ing aggression? In consistency with the rule which you 
have prescribed in the case of defensive war, the direct 
words without any reference to the spirit of the law, much 
less to the intention of the law-giver, are required. I am 
really apprehensive that you have restricted the limits of the 
argument so much, as scarcely to allow yourself sufficient 
scope. I do not recollect any direct command in the New 
Testament against fighting or war, considered as applicable 
to nations; no, nor any specifick prohibitions of sanguinary 
strife between individuals. I am aware that every reader 
will at once advert to the sixth commandment, u thou shalt 
do no murder;” or “ thou shalt not kill.” And this most 
certainly is as obligatory upon Christians as upon the Israel¬ 
ites; yet, if ye may judge from the annals of both, neither 
of them ever understood this command to be a prohibition 
of war. The land of Israel once enjoyed rest for the spaco 
of eighty years; but I have no recollection of any Christian 
nation having abstained from war for so long a period. The 
result is, as I conceive, that if you are determined upon cri¬ 
minating even a war of offence, you must have recourse to 
the spirit and tendency of the Gospel, the general and com¬ 
prehensive precepts it supplies,and the examples it exhibits. 

But I presume to inquire, are not the moral directions 
given us in the New Testament, which are so comprehen¬ 
sive, and of such extended application, as to include the 
very thoughts and affections of the human heart, and em¬ 
brace every individual, perfectly satisfactory and conclusive? 
Am I exonerated from guilt, merely because the statute 
does not in direct words describe circumstantially my 
offence? It is sufficient for the purpose, if the general terms 
employed comprehend the offence, without any perversion or 
fbi ce. And this, I conceive, is the fact respecting the moral 
obligations upon Christians, both on your side of the ques¬ 
tion and my own. Human laws are often defective in their 
construction, and in their application liable to be evaded} 
but “ the law of the Lord is perfect.” 

The terms defensive war and self-defence are often em¬ 
ployed indiscriminately by Grotius and others, when vindi¬ 
cating the propriety of the former. This does not seem to 
be accurate: the usage of language, and the common sense 
of mankind, distinguish them. Self-preservation against the 
unprovoked and unjust attack of an individual, in violation 

are required to sanction Christian institutions, how will the observance of th* 
Sabbath, and the baptism of infants, be maintained? 


<ei those latts to which each owes obedience, and in defiant# 
of their penal sanctions, is surely very different from the 
contentions between hostile nations, who admit no paramount 
tribunal to which they are amenable: who raise and pay ar¬ 
mies to decide the dispute; and when exhausted of men and 
money, consent to a temporary truce, which they honour 
with the name of peace. If my life be threatened by an un¬ 
principled ruffian, it implies no previous altercation; my as¬ 
sailant is armed, which I am not; he demands my money, 
which if I surrender, he (perhaps) politely takes his leave; 
and he by the robbery subjects himself, if taken, to the pu¬ 
nishment which the law denounces. But what is there in 
all this that bears any analogy to war between independent 
states? The infringement of treaties, the disputes which are 
generated by commerce, extension of territory, the balance 
of power, a punctilio of honour, and a variety of other causes, 
produce jealousies or complaints; these, altercations; tnese, 
reciprocal provocations; and these, an appeal to arms. I 
do not perceive any parallelism between the two cases, and 
therefore doubt the propriety of confounding them. 

Between duelling and national war, there is indeed a 
striking resemblance; but as duelling is a crime against all 
law, human and divine, I cannot suppose that you, Sir, meant 
to include it in your vindication of self-defence; and there¬ 
fore dismiss it, with a warm wish, that every Christian state 
were exempt from a practice so diametrically opposite to 
•very principle of morality. 

I return to self-defence; and beg leave to observe, that 
fche term simply means protection from an injury unpro¬ 
voked, unexpected, and alarming. In such a situation the 
person assaulted is generally too much agitated, and the 
affair is conducted with too much celerity to admit of a re¬ 
currence to principle; or a dispassionate discussion of the 
conduct proper to be adopted: and the party acts generally 
as his constitutional impulse at the moment impels. De¬ 
fence means, to resist the meditated stroke by a violent 
effort, whereby the blow is turned aside, and perhaps the 
assailant disabled from attempting to repeat it; should he 
fell in the struggle, 1 will not condemn the defender; but I 
cannot admit the action becomes a test of moral rectitude. 
If we are limited to the strict letter of the Divine command, 
“thou shalt not kill ,” that command is violated; and though 
the action be, by the circumstances of the case, palliated 
and deemed pardonable, it does not follow necessarily that 
it is perfectly justifiable. What would be the reflections of 
a good mind, in a serious moment, upon such an event? “ If 
I had given the unhappy wretch what he demanded, without 
resistance, I should have been personally safe, and he might 


lived to repent of his crimes; but I suspect some rasfa 
ness when I sent the guiiiy creature with all his transgres¬ 
sions upon his head, into a dreadful eternity. Were a few 
guineas to be valued higher than a human life? Besides, my 
hope of future felicity was firm, and I trust well-founded: 
death does not overwhelm me with terrour. Had Provi¬ 
dence permitted the intended stroke to terminate my frail 
existence, I feel a confidence within, that I should have 
been admitted to the felicity of heaven: but the miserable 
man whom I destroyed, ah! where is he?” I solemnly be¬ 
lieve that such reflections would occur to a pious mind, at 
particular seasons, even to the closing period of life; and if 
this be admitted as reasonable and probable, whatever ex¬ 
tenuation may be pleaded, the action would not appear to 
the person himself, completely just and satisfactory. It is 
one of those actions which leave some doubt, some uncer¬ 
tainty, and some dissatisfaction upon the mind. 

Fear, however, is a more generally prevailing passion 
than revenge, and at least equally natural. The most usual 
method of evading danger, is by flight; or such a precipitant 
motion as disappoints the intended stroke. But whether 
such extraordinary occasions, or a moment of tremour, a 
paroxysm of fear or revenge, are judiciously selected as af¬ 
fording a criterion of the propriety of moral conduct, 1 sub¬ 
mit to your deliberation. The calm and sober season of 
reflection will surely admit of examining and ascertaining 
the principles that should determine our conduct and our 
aharacters, with a prospect of success infinitely superiour 
to the period of agitation, terrour, or vengeance, when the 
passions are inflamed, and the proper exercise of reason is 
suspended. 

To fly from impending danger, or to prevent an assailant 
from perpetrating his cruel design, is unquestionably right. 
But is it equally right to kill him, as to prevent his killing 
me? Is it perfectly just in me to divest him of life, when it 
is the excess of injustice in him to attempt to destroy mine? 
The fondest brothers may have their harmony interrupted 
fey contention, which may rise to temporary hatred, and 
vindictive resentment; one of them, swelling with ungovern¬ 
able rage, may insist upon an immediate decision of their 
dispute by the pistol or the sword; the other endeavours to 
mollify and subdue his anger by submissions, by entreaties* 
and by every expression of tender attachment. All is una¬ 
vailable, he opens his bosom, and exclaims, “ if you will not 
be appeased, take my life; your unhappy passion would 
give me the advantage, hut I cannot kiii my brother!” Doe« 
no such instance of refined morality grace the annals of 
mankind? And when I see a human being, may he not say, 


15 


with Wedgwood’s negro, “ Am I not a man, and a brother? 5 # 

« But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” said the benevo¬ 
lent Legislator of the Christian dispensation; and thus en¬ 
joins a system of moral excellence, exquisitely delicate, and 
yet exemplified in himself, when he gave his back to the 
smiters, and, expiring in torture, breathed out his soul in the 
tendcrest prayer—“ Father, forgive them.” When I am 
forbidden to take vengeance, to retaliate, or to return evil 
for evil, the precept is as definite as can be necessary, appli¬ 
cable to any and every case that can occur; and whatever be 
the dictate of nature upon particular emergencies, the 
Christian religion prohibits my appeal to vindictive mea¬ 
sures, and directs me to commit myself to him who judgeth 
righteously. 

The laws of our country only permit the party assailed to 
injure or kill the aggressor, when no legal methods can be 
adopted; and strict morality requires the calling for assist¬ 
ance, flight, disarming the ruffian, or submitting to his re¬ 
quisition, though unjust, before the last dreadful expedient 
be resorted to. Religion, in my opinion, forbids the last; but 
whether I judge right, or otherwise, the instances of such 
extreme urgency are so rare, and when they occur, are so 
little susceptible of the intervention of principle, and so 
much determined by passions, at the time perhaps ungovern¬ 
able, that they cannot, nor ought to be considered as forming 
a basis capable of supporting the right ©f defensive war. 

But is the New Testament absolutely silent* respecting 
self-defence? Do not the commands of our Saviour suppose 
aggression, and prescribe the conduct to be observed when 
it occurs? Do they not necessarily imply some insult, some 
injury, yea, personal violence? When he says, “ Resist not 
evil,” does not the prohibition rest upon the actual suffer¬ 
ance of evil? When he adds, “ Whoever shall smite thee on 
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”! does he not 
forbid, in the clearest terms, retaliation? And in the sue- 

* Postscript, p. 28. 

f Grotius, eminent as lie was, appears sometimes to trifle. In answering 
the objection arising from these words of our Lord, which enjoin us not to 
return injuries, he says, “ But what injuries were these? Such as might ea¬ 
sily be borne; not that patience was not commendable even in the greatest, 
hut that he was content with somewhat a rwoi’e limited patience; and there¬ 
fore he instance th only in a box on the ear, which neither endangers life 
nor limb, but implies only a slighting or contemning of us, which does not 
at all damnify us. This (precept) of non-resistance seems to be both explain¬ 
ed and restrained by the subsequent instance of a box on the ear.” What 
would a high-spirited man of honour say to this restriction? Would he con¬ 
sider a box on the ear an ofl'euce so very trivial, as to offer the other for a 
similar insult? Is it possible that great man, (Grotius,) could really believe 
the non-resistance of offence enjoined by our Loud, was limited precisely to 
the speci&eli instance mentioned? But a determined advocate will sometimes 
condescend to a quibble. 


17 


ceeding directions does he not enjoin us, as St. Paul ex* 
presses it, « not to avenge ourselves, but rather to “ give 
place unto wrath;” and by particular instances, show us 
that we are “ not to be overcome of evil, but to overcome 
evil with good?” Here we have suits at law, forcibly taking 
away a garment, compulsion, smiting, hatred, reproach, 
curses, despiteful treatment, and persecution; and instead 
of resistance and retaliation, we are commanded to acqui¬ 
esce in, and even exceed the unjust demand; to love, t@ 
bless, and to pray for our injurious enemies. From hence 
it seems inevitably to follow, that resistance on the part of 
Christians is absolutely forbidden; and that self-defence, as 
consisting in injuring the aggressor, is prohibited. 

Peter, who was present during this discourse, understood 
his Master in the sense here stated; he, under the influence 
of the same spirit, exhorts the Christians to whom he ad¬ 
dressed his epistles, “ to be pitiful and courteous; not ren¬ 
dering evil for evil, but contrariwise blessing,”* assuring 
them, it was better to suffer, (if the will of God be so,) for 
•well-doing, than for evil-doing.f Their participation in the 
sufferings of Christ was to be to them a ground of rejoicing. 
Many of the first converts were servants, (or slaves,) and he 
directs them never by their misconduct to merit punish* 
ment, u but if when ye do well, and suffer, ye take it patient* 
|y; this is acceptable with God.”f 

St. Paul gives similar directions in his epistle to the 
Romans,§ and when writing to the Corinthians exemplifies 
the practice, by reciting the conduct of himself and his 
orethren,|| u being reviled we bless, being persecuted we 
suffer it, being defamed we entreat.” The believing He¬ 
brews u took joyfully the spoiling of their goods;”** and 
St. James states the yielding temper of those who were ex¬ 
posed to greater violence, u ye have condemned and killed 
the just, and he doth not resist you.”ff He exhorts them to 
exercise patience, and pronounces blessings on those who 
bore with meekness temptations and trials, and counted 
happy those who endured. 

From the general tenour of the Gospel, and from parti¬ 
cular and appropriate passages, it seems to be clearly de- 
ducible, that Christians are prohibited from all violence, eve® 
in self-defence. 

I proceed to notice some other parts of the subject, not 
particularly replied to in my former letter. If Abraham’s 
military excursion be cited in justification of war, may not 
persons of different opinions quote him in vindication of 

* 1 Peter iii. 0. f 1 Peter ill. 17. f 1 Peter iv. 13. 

§ Homans xii. 17. 19, Stc. Ij * ^ or - l v - 3 2, If, 

f* He*, siii. 34, ft 

A 4 


IS 


concubinage, and of equivocation? And may not others, with 
equal propriety, urge his example in favour of circumcision 
and sacrifices? 

The gratulations of Melchizedeck, upon the occasion of 
the patriarch’s success, appear to sanction the enterprise; 
and all the circumstances of the case, and the period in 
which it occurred, being taken into the account, Abraham’s 
•onduct was, I doubt not, justifiable, and even worthy of 
applause. But we are under a different system of religion 
and morals; and though a Christian may be induced to lay 
down his own life for his brethren,* and be justified in so 
doing; it does not appear that he has, on any pretence, a 
right to take away the life of another: the example of Abra¬ 
ham, in his spirited and successful expedition against Che- 
doriaomer and his royal associates, cannot therefore be ad¬ 
duced as proper to be imitated by the disciples of Jesus 
Christ. 

Two remarks may be sufficient to show that martial ex¬ 
ploits do not enter either authoritatively or permissively into 
the Christian system of morals: the first is, that were ge¬ 
nuine Christianity universal, there could be no offensive or 
defensive war; and the second is, that individuals are not to 
wait until their religion become universal, but are now under 
•very obligation to conform to the pure and pacifick spirit and 
conduct which the Son of God has enjoined upon them; that 
is, they are bound to be as free from offence and from re¬ 
venge individually, as if the whole human race formed one 
aggregate body of real Christians. And I may add, that the 
diffusion of the divine principles which characterise Chris¬ 
tianity throughout the world, will, it is probable, never be ac¬ 
complished, until the professors of Christianity shall, in their 
tempers, lives, and actions, exhibit and illustrate their reli¬ 
gion in all its purity ancl energy. Missions may be project¬ 
ed and supported, zeal may occasionally burst forth with 
doubtful splendour; but mankind will not be induced to for¬ 
sake the religion of their fathers, and to abandon their habits 
and their prejudices, unless missionaries produce the sub¬ 
lime doctrines and holy precepts they preach, existing in 
real life; unless zeal be associated with the mild and pure 
spirit of the Gospel; and Christians, wherever seen, shall evi¬ 
dently appear to be “ more excellent than their neighbours.^ 
The progress of revelation has been, like the rising light, 
shining brighter and brighter unto the perfect day: and con¬ 
sidering the superiour information, and more extended and 
refined morality of the Gospel, it seems to be a retrograde 
movement, that refers us to remote ages foi example, fey 


* 1 Jolm ia. IS. 


19 


'which we are to regulate our conduct, and decide question* 
of conscience. John the baptist had no superiour “ among 
them that are born of women; notwithstanding he that is 
least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”* 

I attend you to the New Testament, in which the direc¬ 
tion of Johnf to the soldiers, claims our first regard. His 
advice is, “ do violence to no man, neither accuse falsely, 
and be content with your wages.’’ Regulated violence if* 
the essence of war, and licentious violence its general ac¬ 
companiment. A soldier acting up to the advice here given 
him, would be very unlit for discharging the active duties 
assigned him; but whether or not John’s direction was to 
be understood as forbidding every species of violence, the 
difficulty must be shared between us: for whilst I have 
chosen to exhibit the pacifick system of the Gospel, as pro¬ 
hibiting violence even in self-defence; it will devolve upon 
you, Sir, to prove, that the employment of these soldiers, 
and the advice given them, were restricted to self-defence; 
or that, though forbidden to do violence, they might upon 
some occasions neglect the admonition. 

With regard to these soldiers, and the other anecdotes of 
military characters recited in the New Testament, I ob¬ 
serve,—that as neither our Lord nor his apostles ever inter¬ 
posed to direct or advise the form of government under 
which they lived, we ought not to expect from them any 
regulations of either a civil or a military nature: audit is a 
fact, that we find no admonition or precept addressed to po¬ 
litical establishments. If a soldier, from being a Jewish 
proselyte, or a Pagan, became a convert to Christianity, 
there is no specifick direction given him to renounce the 
profession of arms.f But a question of considerable mag¬ 
nitude, and of some importance, is here suggested. These 

• Matt. xi. It. t Letter to Mr. Warner, p. 14. 

* Neither is there any precept that exonerates the slave, belling, pur¬ 
chasing, and employing slaves, are no where in the New Testament in lite¬ 
ral terms prohibited or condemned, but will the advocates ot humanity 
admit this silence on the subject, as an argument in favour of the horrid 
trafiick? A considei*able proportion of the primitive Christian societies con¬ 
sisted of such slaves; and what was their condition? “ They were held pr® 
nullis, pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus; for no men, for dead men, for beasts; 
nay they were in a much worse state than any cattle whatsoever. —Dr. John 
Tailor’s Elements of Civil Law, p.428,429, as quoted by Parkhurst, under 

the word AotAoc. , ,, , , . . 

St. Paul, in his advice to such, says, “ Art thou called, being a servant, 
for slave)? care not for it: hut if thou mayest be made free, use u rather. 
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, (or slave,) is the Cord s 

freeman/’ l Cor. vii. 21, 22. . . . r , . . 

Can any thing possibly show the mild unresisting spirit ot the Gospel in % 
more striking light, than such advice? And has not a slave as complete a 
natural right to life and liberty, as any man trained to arms? Vet he hasn® 
encouragement in the Gospel to assert his right, or to liberate kitnseu J 
violence. 


were Roman soldiers; and for what purposes were the Ro¬ 
man armies raised, disciplined, and designed? For defence 
only; or for conquest and aggrandizement chiefly? Some 
portion of the military was appropriated to guard the em- 
perour, and contribute to the splendour of the court: other 
portions of them were stationed to protect the courts of law, 
and attend the officers of justice: but the great mass of the 
army was destined to make further conquests, or to pre¬ 
serve in subjection those already made. Your reference, 
therefore, to the subject of Christianized soldiers, and the 
silence of the New Testament respecting the inconsistency 
of their profession with their religion, will include more 
than you wish; and afford the advocates of offensive war as 
powerful an argument, as you can derive from it for defen¬ 
sive war. Can it be imagined, that our Lord and his apos¬ 
tles, by their silence on this head, connived at, or counte¬ 
nanced the passion of the Romans for extending their arms, 
and subjugating the whole human race? Is it rational to 
suppose, that he, who preached deliverance to the captives, 
would lend even the slightest encouragement to a haughty 
people, whose potent legions kept in slavish subjection the 
greatest part of the world, to persist in their sanguinary 
progress, and to detain their ill-gotten conquests? 

Allow me just to observe, that it appears to me in the 
highest degree improbable, that the forerunner of Christ, 
Christ himself, or his apostles, would have encouraged that 
military spirit, by which their country was, at that very pe¬ 
riod, held in subjection to a foreign yoke. 

Our Lord and his immediate followers had every motive, 
arising from attachments social, civil, and religious, to wish 
their country freed from the dominion of the Romans, and 
in the enjoyment of liberty and independence. But they 
enjoin a submission to “ the powers that be,” and never em¬ 
brace opportunities the most favourable, never exert pow¬ 
ers that must have succeeded, never drop a sentiment that 
tended to excite insurrection, resistance, or even discontent. 
Is it possible to produce a fact more striking and convincing, 
in favour of my proposition, “ that Christianity is a System 
of Peace?” 

Is it not unlikely, after all, that these soldiers were sta¬ 
tionary in the cities and towns which had been subdued by 
the Romans; and might not, for a considerable time, if ever, 
be called out to the field of slaughter. And I beg leave to 
observe, that their continuance in their military profession 
is first assumed, and then transformed into an argument, in 
favour of the doctrine you maintain. I think, however, that 
it is equally proper to assume the negative, and I will tell 
you why I think so: Cornelius and his connexions, under th© 


51 


instructions of.St. Peter, received the extraordinary gifts 
of the Holy Ghost;* they spake with tongues, and magni¬ 
fied God. Now, is it credible, that supernatural powers 
were communicated to these soldiers, for the purpose of 
their continuing in the same situation and employment as 
before? Is it not more reasonable to infer, that these mira¬ 
culous gifts, by which they were qualified to propagate the 
Gospel, should lead them to engage in that service; and, 
relinquishing the weapons of war, induce them to become 
the heralds of salvation? 

Further—Were the Christian soldiers, do you suppose, to 
act from conviction, or to yield implicit obedience to the or¬ 
ders of their commanders? Could they, in submission, to 
their superiours, engage in unjust warfare for the acquisi¬ 
tion of additional territory; or, as was often the case in the 
Roman armies, for the purpose of gratifying their general 
with a triumph? Could they become the instruments of te¬ 
nacious authority, in oppressing and laying waste countries 
struggling to recover their liberty? Or could they foment 
insurrections, and by force attempt the emancipation of their 
(perhaps native) country from foreign tyranny? Viewing 
this description of converts to Christianity in any and in 
every point of light, it appears extremely difficult, if possi¬ 
ble, to form a coalition between the martial and the Chris¬ 
tian character, upon New Testament evidence; or even to 
derive any solid arguments from the cases cited, in favour. 
of military Christians. 

You, Sir, have quoted archdeacon Paley on one side, and 
I have quoted him on the other. In support of your cause, 
he says,f 6i the profession of a soldier is, (in the New Testa¬ 
ment,) no where forbidden or condemned;” and proceeds to 
adduce such evidence as the centurion, converted soldiers, 
and the advice of John the baptist, are supposed by him to 
afford. In favour of the cause which I have attempted to 
maintain, he agrees with Soame Jenyns, in excluding pa* 
triotum and active courage , in the sense in which these 
qualities are usually understood, from the class of virtuous? 
qualities recommended in the Gospel. He includes in that 
class passive courage or endurance of sufferings , patience 
under affronts and injuries, humility, irresistance, placability. 
He then supplies the extracts which are introduced in my 
first letter, page 4. After referring to the sermon on the 
Mount, and citing some passages illustrative of the quali¬ 
ties required in Christians, he adds,f “ This certainly is not 
common-place morality. It is very original. It shows, at 
least, (and it is for this purpose we produce it,) that no two 

* Acts x. 44, 45, 46, 47. f Moral Philosophy, vol. ii. p, 40& 

4 View of the Evidences of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 52, 33. 


tilings can be more different than the hcroick and the Chris¬ 
tian characters.” 

“ Now the author to whom I refer, has not only remarked 
this difference more strongly than any preceding writer; but 
has proved, in contradiction to first impressions, to popular 
opinions, to the encomiums of orators and poets, and even 
the suffrages of historians and moralists, that the latter cha¬ 
racter possesses the most true worth, both as being most 
difficult either to be acquired or sustained, and as contribu¬ 
ting most to the happiness and tranquillity of social life. If 
this disposition were universal, the case is clear: the world 
would be a society of friends. Whereas, if the other dis¬ 
position were universal, it would produce a scene of univer¬ 
sal contention.”* 

That the archdeacon, when describing Christianity, gives 
a clearer and more correct analysis of its morality, than 
when he incidentally introduces it into his Moral Philosophy, 
J most assuredly believe: though in the second volume of 
his Evidences of Christianity, p. 36, he has the following ob¬ 
servation, which appears to me objectionable. 

“ It is sufficiently apparent, that the precepts we have re¬ 
cited, or rather the disposition which these precepts incul¬ 
cate, relate to personal conduct from personal motives, to 
«ases in which men act from impulse, for themselves, and 
from themselves. When it comes to be considered, what 
is necessary to be done for the sake of the publick, and out 
of regard for the general welfare, (which consideration, for 
the most part, ought exclusively to govern the duties of men 
in publick stations,) it comes to a case to which the rules 
do not belong.” 

' In reply to this it may be said, that this kingdom consists 
of individuals, each of whom, from the regal head of the 
church down to the lowest rank, with the exception of a 
very small proportion of Jews, Mahometans, See., by assu¬ 
ming the name of Christian, is considered as under the au¬ 
thority, and engaging to conform to the moral government 
of Christ. How then can any body or class of these indi¬ 
viduals claim an exemption from a law which is binding 
upon each of them, both detached, and in connexion with 
their fellow-creatures? 

The prophecies which announce the character of the Re¬ 
deemer’s kingdom, are certainly not jirece/itivc; but I pre¬ 
sume them to be true, and perceive also that when his king- 

* If Christianity inculcates and cherishes this spirit, ought not every 
Christian to devote all his talent and energies to its extension, and to the 
diffusion of the inestimable blessings w hich it ensures? What good mind can 
hesitate to adopt and cultivate such dispositions, and promote their benign 
effects amongst his fellow-men’? 


23 


was actually commenced, its principles and precept* 
exemplified the prediction. 

When a person is said to wear a sword, we understand it 
to mean, that it generally constitutes an appendage to his 
dress. I am not sufficiently informed in the manners of 
that age, or of the dress of the Jews, (a people held in sub¬ 
jection by the Romans,) to determine the fact. The proba¬ 
bility lies against their wearing swords, as a general custom. 
Whether Peter’s occupation as a fisherman, who sometimes 
stripped himself, and plunged into the sea, was favourable 
to the habit of wearing a sword, I doubt. And that two 
swords &7ily were found amongst twelve persons, is no very 
decisive evidence in favour of common usage, if wearing 
swords were such. One fact is, however, sufficiently obvi¬ 
ous; we never hear of Peter appearing armed, until, after a 
lapse of ages, ambitious ecclesiasticks supplied him with 
the sword and the keys, and the church became literally 
<£ terrible as any army with banners.” 

The passage in Luke xxii. 36, may be interpreted lite¬ 
rally, without blame; but the propriety of so doing is ques¬ 
tionable, as after that event, we have no reason to suppose 
that Peter ever wore or used a sword; and if he complied 
with the words of the precept, permission, or prediction, in 
carrying a purse, it seems it was but poorly replenished, 
for on one occasion he tells the helpless suppliant, “ silver 
and gold have I none.”* 

The goodness of your principles, and the benevolence of 
your heart, induce you to reject every species of warfare 
that is not strictly defensive; but the limitation itself has its 
difficulties, which I alluded to in a note, page 4, of my first 
Letter. 

An aggressorcommenc.es hostilities; the defensive power 
attacks an Island belonging to the former; the inhabitants 
defend themselves. The cultivators of that island, who 
probably are totally ignorant of the war, its cause, or its 
justice, consider the attack as an aggression and endeavour 
to repel the assailants, and preserve themselves and their 
property.—A merchantman sailing in perfect security, as 
the crew apprehend, is encountered by a legal pirate, and 
the only alternative is, submission or sinking to the bottom. 
Pardon my adoption of the patriarch’s exclamation; “ O my 
soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, 
mine honour, be not thou united. Cursed be their anger, 
for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel!’ , t 

Must we restrict our notions of the justice of a war to 
the first offence? Will not that generate a progeny of recip¬ 
rocal aggressions, and the question at length become so 
perplexed, as to be incapable of satisfactory solution? It is 

Arts iff. fr, f Genesis xlix. 6, T, 


* 


lay serious opinion, that by vindicating the propriety of dc* 
fensive war, every description of war must also be vindica¬ 
ted. The causes, or rather the occasions of war, are so 
numerous, so various, sometimes so frivolous, and generally 
so imperfectly known to the mass of the people who are to 
support it, that it is almost, if not wholly, impracticable to 
decide with precision on the justice or necessity of any war. 

Such is the superiour delicacy of Christian morality, that 
it forbids us to return evil for evil; to irritate bad passions 
by going to law; and enjoins us to suffer ourselves rather to 
foe defrauded, and to obtain a glorious conquest over ourselves 
and others, by subduing evil with good. And if the princi¬ 
ple which you embrace ever becomes universally prevalent, 
aggression ceasing, defence will be superseded; and every 
benevolent heart will rejoice in the emancipation of the world 
from the daemon of discord and war. 

The religion that is constructed in all its parts to effect 
a purpose so magnificent, and so beneficial to mankind, can¬ 
not admit into its code any revengeful passions, or hostile 
violence: and in the full conviction that this is the true 
character of Christianity, I wish myself and others who pro¬ 
fess it, to cherish and extend its benign spirit, in the blessed 
expectation that the grand object, however protracted, will 
ultimately be accomplished. 

Your suggestion that the few persons engaged in the di¬ 
rection of publick affairs in states, might be the leaven which 
would leaven the whole lump, comes within the limits of 
possibility: I wish from my heart, it was also within the 
precincts of probability. Whether the pure spirit of Christian 
foenevo ence begin among the higher or lower ranks, may it 
pervade the 'whole community, and constitute the national 
character! 

My country! peace be within her walls, and prosperity 
Within her palaces! May her oflicers be peace, and her ex¬ 
actors righteousness! May her walls be salvation, and her 
gates praise! May integrity and uprightness preserve her, 
truth and holiness constitute her glory, and upon all the 
glory may there be a defence! 

Reverend Sir, I have endeavoured to supply the deficien¬ 
cies of my first Address, by considering those ramifications 
of the subject, which were either neglected as of subordi¬ 
nate importance, or but cursorily noticed. I have now done. 
Feeling as I do, a confidence in the strength and goodness 
of the cause I have embraced; I am only apprehensive, lest 
the placid genius of the Gospel should be injured by the 
inadvertence or incompetency of its humhle apologist. 

I am, reverend Sir, very respectfully. 

Your obedient servant, 

T, V. 


July 20, 1804. 


25 


THOUGHTS, 

AFTER READING THE FOREGOING. 

THE doctrine of the Messiah relative to war, is easily understood bv the 
real subjects of His government; who, under His banner are conflicting with 
their proper enemies, those “of their own houses.” Such appear to them¬ 
selves too much the objects of mercy, to make the evil propensities of others 
a pretext for destroying them; sensible that this heavenly boon must from 
the nature of things, ever be denied to a relentless and unforgiving spirit. 

Where this internal warfare is not actually engaged in, the ground of ex¬ 
ternal wars and fightings is easily overlooked; for warriours will always find 
in their alternate provocations and resentments, sufficient excuse for a re¬ 
taliation of injuries. But though such may value themselves on superiour 
degrees of light and knowledge, and even profess allegiance to the Prince 
©f Peace; it is evident to every dispassionate observer, that they as little 
respect his precepts and example, as any other inhabitants of the earth wh» 
never heard of his name. 

To tell an infuriated warriour, that, as men are to be known by their 
fruits,* he can have no more right to the Christian name, than a savage who 
never heard auy thing of it, would probably be more than he could bear; 
but as “God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us,-{- and as Christ hath declared, that he came “ not 
to destroy men’s lives, but to save them;”$ it is hard to conceive how any 
one exercised either in projecting or executing warlike measures, can se¬ 
riously believe himself to be at the same time a real Christian. Certainly 
something more than profession is necessary to the character; and what that 
something is, we are told in these plain words of the apostle, “ If any maxt 
have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His ”§ 

There is at best no more difference between offensive and defensive war, 
than between the first and second blow in a battle: all that follows the second 
is equally offensive, and it requires the same spirit of violence in both the com¬ 
batants to maintain the contest. But though some Christian professors only 
plead the authority of the Scriptures in support of their scruples, they 
seldom converse with their opponents on the subject, without being ques¬ 
tioned whether they can say they would, under all circumstances, adhere to 
their principles: as if this was the criterion on winch the authenticity of the 
Scriptures depended, or the conduct of any one could render diem true or 
false. 

What Sir! (said one of those captious inquisitors,) If a ruffian should enter 
rour house with a full purpose to kill your wife and children, and you could 
co otherwise save their lives than by knocking him oi the head, would you 
scruple to do it? Here it is presumed that the person assailed is certain of 
the assailant’s purpose; and that there is no means of defeating it, but by 


* Matt. vii. 16. 

§ Romans viii. 9. 


| Romans v. 8. 


4 Luke ix. 56. 




26 


adopting his intention, and killing him. The answer—and the only one the 

case would admit, of—was, Thou queriest of me, a poor weak creature, 
what £ would do in the moment of temptation? I can only say, I possibly 
luight, and if left to myself probably should , do wrong;* but how. would that 
prove the principle itself to be false? 

In like manner, a celebrated preacher expatiating on the doctrine of a 
perfect redemption from sin attainable in this life; instead of pressing it on 
his hearers as the mark of their high calling, ludicrously exclaimed, “ Send 
me a man who can declare he has arrived at it, and I’ll engage to pay him 
the expense of his journey.” Now bad the disciples to whom these pre¬ 
cepts, “ I say unto you, resist not evil—forgive men their trespasses against 
you—love and pray for your enemies—be ye perfect,”'f' &c. were address¬ 
ed, answered, Lord, thou requirest impossibilities of us—what can we think 
would have been his reply? 

It is certainly out of character for any one who apprehends himself com- 
missioned to espouse the cause of Christ, to plead for war in contradiction 
to his plain and positive precepts, and the declared end of his coming; and 
especially when the nations which have the record of those precepts almost 
exclusively in their hands, are all worrying and destroying each other, in a 
degree almost without precedent. Can those who believe our Lord really 
did declare he came to save men’s lives, in the very act of destroying them, 
imagine themselves to be his followers? 

To attempt to justify war by the example of that in heaven, alluded to by 
Jude, and in Rev. xii. 7. appears to be a mischievous interpretation of Scrip¬ 
ture. For with equal propriety it may be said, that what the apostle has 
expx^essed of “the armour of God,” and wrestling “against principalities 
and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wicked¬ 
ness in high places,” is all to be understood as analogous to the sanguinary 
contests of mankind with each other. But to obviate so dangerous a con¬ 
struction, we musttake the apostle’s own explanation, viz. Though we walk 
in the flesh, we war not after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare 
are not carnal; but mighty through God to the pulling down strong holds, 
casthLg down imaginations , and every high thing that exalteth itself 
against the knowledge of God; and bringing into captivity every thought 
to the obedience of Christ. 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 5. 

1 his is the warfare into which alone the Saviour of the world can, con¬ 
sistently with his own precepts and example, call and lead his followers— 
not the battle which “ is with confused noise, and garments rotted in blood,” 
and in which the greatest possible success may leave a man’s proper ene¬ 
mies, those of his own house, in full strength and unsubdued. 

Such insinuations cannot but be of an injurious tendency, by fostering a 
martial spirit, and leading unstable minds to imagine, that it is rather promo- 
tive than a hinderance in the way to that Holy Mountain, where the Scrip¬ 
tures declare there is nothing that hurts or destroys. 


Witness Peter’s conduct, Matt. xxvi. 33, 


t Matt. v i 





AX EXTEXSIVE VARIETY OF 

VALUABLE BOOKS. 

Are on Sale by D. Allinson, at reasonable prices, and 
with every accommodation on considerable purchases. 


BE ALSO CARRIES ON THE 

PRINTING BUSINESS, 

IN ITS VARIOUS BRANCHES, 

' 

▲ NO 

&INDS OR REPAIRS SECOND-HAND BOOKS. 

*** All orders in his line will receive attention and 

despatch. 



-irr-4 

m 


m 


i 

3 


€ 




-« 


€ 

4a 

1 




%1 
1 


m 

M 


m 

m 

m 




UCBffliW: _ 

<*W W*i&*aV9*¥ii7»*’i¥» 




FUR SALE, 


BY DAVID ALUKSON, 


THE 



TO WHICH IS ADDED, 



n*.. 












OR, 




THE PLEA OF REASON, RELIGION, AND 


HUMANITY AGAINST WAR. 


m 


•si 


m 


iH3* 


Ci 

« 


» 


» 

Wt 

W" 


4 COMPLAINT OF PEACE: gf 


»■ 


& 


* 




J 


TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN OF THE CELEBRATED jjjg, 

ERASMUS. 


• S*" 

54 


• 41 : 


» 


PRICE OWE DOLLAR. 







>* M> e r S]LZ£. t fA*; 








-* 













